Urizen said:
The act of Kosovo declaring independance is not legal, otherwise when Ban Ki Mun was asked whether it was legal for Kosovo to become independent after the security counsel meeting in february, he would have said yes instead of not replying at all. It is illegal also because it is against the international law for regions to break off from a country whose borders are internationally recognized and whose territorial integrity and sovereignty is guaranteed by the resolution of the UN 1244.
Ban Ki-Moon is South Korean. But it is not the Secretary-General's job to comment on the legality of certain things; instead, it is the job of the Secretary-General to create policy decisions. As a South Korean, his delegation has nothing to say in the Security Council. That power is held by the five veto-emboldened members.
UN Resolution 1244 guarantees that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia until a Kosovo Status Process could be convened. Though that Status Process was not fulfilled, one can argue that events have made the Status Process pointless. It can also be said that the Serbian-control clause was nullified as the FRY finished collapsing; though I believe that UNSCR 1244 would be nullified simply because it is a
RESOLUTION, not a law.
International law consists of treaties all participant nations agree to hold as the highest laws of the land, say, the Geneva Conventions. A UN Security Council Resolution is not binding. Plus, it seems like the original resolution was flawed, as it gives no right to Kosovars to choose their own independence.
Besides that why haven't you pointed out exactly where does it say that an ethnic minority in a country can simply declare independence as if they have the right to do it, as if it is only of their concern? Why didn't the UK let the Falkland islands located some few thousand miles away from its historical region go?
The Declaration of Human Rights, I think it's clause 26? My copy's not in front of me currently. It was a similar argument used to allow the breakup of Yugoslavia into all those states...Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovenia, and now Kosovo and Serbia. Each with their own cultures and traditions. And the Falkland Islands did not make a movement towards independence or altering allegiance; they were conquered by a separate political entity.
If an ethnic community supported by the US wishes to become independent so the US can extend its domain and influence then it's the duty of the 'free' peoples to support what the US tells them to. I see...
It is the duty of the 'free' world to support an act of secession wholly unlawful and the conditions for which were set up only as a result of centuries of planned, systematic, forced change of the ethnic structure. So anyone can come into a country, multiply extremely fast, terrorize the existing population, and get itself a country?
This is utter nonsense. "Ethnic structure"? What the hell is that? Yes. People can come into the culture, overwhelm it, and create their own unique nation out of it. Why? Because of precedent. The United States, Canada, Israel...all are examples of that sort of behaviour. However, the existence of Kosovo goes back, yes, centuries, something like 800 years since it was wholly Serbian. Maybe we should go back further and give it all to Italy, since Rome ruled that beforehand.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the United States is not exactly everyone's favourite country nowadays. Most Western nations do what they think is right. Canada, France, Germany, Italy...we didn't follow the US into Iraq, did we? Assuming we do what the US tells us is a serious fallacy.
As for Tibet, yeah, I realize the US needs to get itself closer to rising China so it could keep a close eye on it. They tried doing it couple of times before: Korean war, The Vietnam war... and yet it was always the northern part of the country they were unable to control... Maybe they could finally succeed with Tibet. Just stir up the popular opinion some more, with a few more movies, cry out about human rights etc. And I think none of us needs to be reminded of just how dedicated the US government is to the protection of 'human rights'.
The current US administration doesn't have a great track record with human rights, no. But again, who says the United States has to be leading this? Personally, I would like to see my country lead with a ban of Chinese imports. It might be impossible to do without America, because our economies are so tightly linked, but what's stopping the EU? Just, no more Chinese goods. Period.
The United States has never desired a war with the PRC. They fought the PRC in Korea, but originally that was about the Soviet sphere; same with Vietnam (a nation perpetually fearful of their larger, northern neighbours). Right now it would be very difficult for the US to do much; but see the Tibet thread for more on my opinions there.
Let me ask you a question:
Why does Kosovo *not* deserve independence? What makes their people deserve to live in a nation where their particular culture is outweighed and outvoted? Why should they not have a voice all their own?
I mean, developing the underdeveloped. Croatia already received plethora of funds from EU. The money usually doesn't reach it's goal, for two reasons : the uncompetetive politicians don't know how to put a good diplomacy and use the money wisely, and the greedy politicians use the money for their own good.
